Reply to comment

From what I understand alarmists (or perhaps just some of them) believe that changes in Earth's orbit determine cycles of ice ages as well. They believe that there's a regularity to these cycles which can be determined by looking at the sedimentary record. They claim that this natural cycle of ice ages and interglacials has been artificially interrupted by anthropogenic CO2. They claim that we should've started entering into another ice age a while ago, but instead we've had warming because of industrialization.

From your description it sounds like the process is more complex than what the alarmists say. Not only does the orbit matter, but so does the Earth's tilt, which also varies with time.

I wanted to say this, though, because you claim that this cycle defies the alarmist theory that CO2 determines climate change. My understanding is that alarmists use this theory of orbit as an arrow in their quiver, to bolster their point about anthropogenic warming. Am I correct in that the difference between what this paper says and what they say is that it shows this interaction is more complex than what they think is going on?